Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 17:27:41 PDT From: "Marty Leisner" <leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com> To: "Craig Shaver" <craig@progroup.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Opinions? NT VS UNIX, NT SUCKS SOMETIMES Message-ID: <9607200027.AA14374@gemini.sdsp.mc.xerox.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:40:44 PDT." <199607192240.PAA06649@seabass.progroup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199607192240.PAA06649@seabass.progroup.com>, you write: >> >> >> >> ><soapbox> >> >I'm still trying to understand why people think they have to run NT. >> >There are other options, like FreeBSD and OS/2. A lot cheaper and not >> >made by Microsoft. >> ></soapbox> >> >> Because NT is a very solid server OS. It is tightly integrated with >> the most popular application server software, Microsoft BackOffice. >> It is *the* most stable OS I have run. It scales well across multiple >> CPUs, and has a very solid multi-processor and multi-threaded kernel. >> NT 4.0 will have not only dynamically scheduled threads, but user- >blah, blah, blah, on and on .... del ...... > I've had very negative experiences with OS/2. I've installed it multiple times (I got OS/2 warp/ warp connect and NE2000 boards). I've installed it several times in the last year on different machines configured differently...I don't do any serous work on them, OS/2 warp eventually came up with a useless message "file system corrupt--please call <some number> for support...right, sure, like, someone will come to my house and fix my machine? pretty useless... NT is fine in many regards...but I just have an NT 3.51 installation go south, and the "repair" mode can't seem to find my CD-ROM... I also was writing some netbios/lanserver emulation code on another machine (a sun) running TCP/IP. I obviously had a bug in my program (; -)) and it seems I bought NT (3.51) to its knees with my bug (a panic). Any OS where a buggy remote application can crash the machine is suspect (yes, it can happen, but it points to architectural problems). I found win95 pretty reasonable in many ways (I use it somewhat, mainly to run win32 applications...and I need to network with it...) In many cases installation was pretty plug and chug and it seems much more reliable than windows 3.1... Just MHO. I really get miffed hearing people laud the robustness of NT and OS/2...I found both pale to current copies of linux and FreeBSD. thank you, marty
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9607200027.AA14374>